<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Jeff, my sense of all this discussion is that it
misses the point. The lighting ordinance should not require reduction of
lighting in areas on your own property that affect your health and safety.
It should reduce the light that escapes to areas where it ought not go and has
no effect on health and safety -- the night sky, i.e., upwards, and neighbors'
property.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial>Bruce</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=jeffh@moscow.com href="mailto:jeffh@moscow.com">Jeff Harkins</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 23, 2006 3:23
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] RE: lighting
pollution</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Sure, there are a number of factors that come in to
play:<BR><BR>Private property rights<BR>Population shifts<BR>Infrastructure
needs<BR>Economic development<BR>Land use<BR>Natural resources<BR>Hazardous
areas<BR>Public services, facilities and
utilities<BR>Transportation<BR>Recreation<BR>Special areas or
sites<BR>Housing<BR>Community design<BR>Implementation issues (takings in
particular)<BR><BR>Here are some issues that I would consider relevant to the
business:<BR><BR>Is the business in a properly designated zone?<BR>Has the
business use changed?<BR>Have the business processes changed?<BR>Is it
following the standards imposed on it when it initiated operations?<BR>Is
their activity in conformity with the local land use planning
ordinance?<BR><BR>If the answers to those questions are Yes, No, No, Yes, Yes,
then the "burden of proof" now rests with the plaintiff. <BR><BR>So, the next
question becomes: Can the plaintiff demonstrate harm from the business
activity? If so, how, how much, what are the circumstances?<BR><BR>But
let me be clear - should health and safety concerns be trumped by someone who
wants lighting to be reduced so that they can enjoy a dark sky?
No.<BR><BR>At 01:18 PM 1/23/2006, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Jeff,<BR><BR>We are both in
agreement that Phil knows more about the mining industry than you and I ever
will. But you're still avoiding answering the question: is it appropriate or
not appropriate to regulate a business for effects off-site that may not
have identifiable safety or health issues such as noise or
lighting?<BR><BR>Mark<BR><BR>At 12:32 PM -0800 1/23/06, Jeff Harkins
wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Mark,<BR><BR>Of course, for an
industrial mining operation, one would be foolish not to consider the
tradeoffs (benefits and costs to be more precise) of the business
operation. <B><I>All of the elements of planning</I></B> as cited in
67.6508 should be considered and analyzed. And analysis requires
more than conjecture, opinion and feelings as a basis for judgment.
Fundamentally, it requires knowledge.<BR><BR>For example, I have been very
impressed with the degree of knowledge and reason that Phil Nesbitt brings
to the table - particularly on questions pertaining to the extractive
industry. While I have questions about the application of some of
his findings (just some), I know that he has done his homework on the
science of the issues. He looks at issues from reason and knowledge
and bases his recommendations and conclusions on those findings. Our
local planning process would benefit greatly from the application of that
concept. <BR><BR>Is is possible that we are in agreement on
this?<BR><BR>At 10:43 AM 1/23/2006, you wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Jeff,<BR><BR>Let me be more
specific then. Would you consider regulating of a business operation,
such as a rock pit, a matter of public health and safety on the issues
of hours of operation, noise and lights?<BR><BR>Mark<BR><BR>At 10:33 AM
-0800 1/23/06, Jeff Harkins wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=cite cite="" type="cite">Mark,<BR><BR>I think I
answered your question quite clearly:<BR><BR><TT>Yes, there are
numerous examples. But the predominant case for local<BR>land
use planning is the safety and health of the
residents.<BR><BR></TT>But you raise one of my major points of concern
about our local planning commission and that is their fulfillment of
the primary duty to:<BR><BR><TT>to conduct a comprehensive planning
process designed to prepare, implement, and review and update a
comprehensive plan, hereafter referred to as the
plan.</TT>.<BR><BR>The primary components of the planning process are,
as you properly
cite:<BR><BR><TT><X-TAB> </X-TAB>
a) Property Rights -- An analysis of provisions which may be
necessary<BR>to insure that land use policies, restrictions,
conditions and fees do not<BR>violate private property rights,
adversely impact property values or create<BR>unnecessary technical
limitations on the use of property and analysis as<BR>prescribed under
the declarations of purpose in chapter 80, title 67,
Idaho<BR>Code.<BR> (b) Population -- A
population analysis of past, present, and future<BR>trends in
population including such characteristics as total population,
age,<BR>sex, and income.<BR> (c) School
Facilities and Transportation -- An analysis of public
school<BR>capacity and transportation considerations associated with
future development.<BR> (d) Economic
Development -- An analysis of the economic base of the
area<BR>including employment, industries, economies, jobs, and income
levels.<BR> (e) Land Use -- An analysis of
natural land types, existing land covers<BR>and uses, and the
intrinsic suitability of lands for uses such as
agriculture,<BR>forestry, mineral exploration and extraction,
preservation, recreation,<BR>housing, commerce, industry, and public
facilities. A map shall be prepared<BR>indicating suitable projected
land uses for the jurisdiction.<BR> (f)
Natural Resource -- An analysis of the uses of rivers and
other<BR>waters, forests, range, soils, harbors, fisheries, wildlife,
minerals, thermal<BR>waters, beaches, watersheds, and
shorelines.<BR> (g) Hazardous Areas -- An
analysis of known hazards as may result from<BR>susceptibility to
surface ruptures from faulting, ground shaking, ground<BR>failure,
landslides or mudslides; avalanche hazards resulting from
development<BR>in the known or probable path of snowslides and
avalanches, and floodplain<BR>hazards.<BR> (h)
Public Services, Facilities, and Utilities -- An analysis
showing<BR>general plans for sewage, drainage, power plant sites,
utility transmission<BR>corridors, water supply, fire stations and
fire fighting equipment, health and<BR>welfare facilities, libraries,
solid waste disposal sites, schools, public<BR>safety facilities and
related services. The plan may also show locations of<BR>civic centers
and public buildings.<BR> (i) Transportation
-- An analysis, prepared in coordination with the<BR>local
jurisdiction(s) having authority over the public highways and
streets,<BR>showing the general locations and widths of a system of
major traffic<BR>thoroughfares and other traffic ways, and of streets
and the recommended<BR>treatment thereof. This component may also make
recommendations on building<BR>line setbacks, control of access,
street naming and numbering, and a proposed<BR>system of public or
other transit lines and related facilities including<BR>rights-of-way,
terminals, future corridors, viaducts and grade separations.<BR>The
component may also include port, harbor, aviation, and other
related<BR>transportation facilities.<BR> (j)
Recreation -- An analysis showing a system of recreation
areas,<BR>including parks, parkways, trailways, river bank greenbelts,
beaches,<BR>playgrounds, and other recreation areas and
programs.<BR> (k) Special Areas or Sites -- An
analysis of areas, sites, or structures<BR>of historical,
archeological, architectural, ecological, wildlife, or
scenic<BR>significance.<BR> (l) Housing -- An
analysis of housing conditions and needs; plans for<BR>improvement of
housing standards; and plans for the provision of safe,<BR>sanitary,
and adequate housing, including the provision for
low-cost<BR>conventional housing, the siting of manufactured housing
and mobile homes in<BR>subdivisions and parks and on individual lots
which are sufficient to maintain<BR>a competitive market for each of
those housing types and to address the needs<BR>of the
community.<BR> (m) Community Design -- An
analysis of needs for governing landscaping,<BR>building design, tree
planting, signs, and suggested patterns and standards<BR>for community
design, development, and beautification.<BR>
(n) Implementation -- An analysis to determine actions,
programs,<BR>budgets, ordinances, or other methods including
scheduling of public<BR>expenditures to provide for the timely
execution of the various components of<BR>the plan.<BR><BR></TT>I have
been attending Planning Commission meetings for over a year now as
they have plodded through the proposed changes to the Comprehensive
Long Range Plan. In virtually every meeting, one or more
attendees have raised the question - why are you doing this? what is
your objective? what is the problem you are trying to resolve.
In not one single meeting has a planning commission member reached
into a file, briefcase or drawer to produce a copy of an analysis of
any kind. Not once. This group has not provided evidence
of an analysis that includes any of the required analysis units -
despite repeated requests. This would seem to be in conflict
with the requirements of 67.6508.<BR><BR>I think that this is the
primary reason that this particular proposed ordinance has met with
such resistance. The Planning Commission has taken several
positions on issues, presumably based on their personal knowledge,
experience and beliefs, instead of providing an analysis of issues,
with the results available in writing for review. And they have
certainly not reduced their findings to writing to allow review or
dialogue about their analyses supporting their
findings.<BR><BR>Coincidentally, the makeup of the committee did not
have a representative for the farming sector for the full year. The
group that would be most impacted by the proposed ordinance was not
even represented on the Commission.<BR><BR>I would very much like to
know what their population analysis is and the assumptions they made
about it and drew from it.<BR><BR>I would very much like to know what
their assessment of school needs is and what it is based on.<BR><BR>I
would very much like to know what their conclusions for economic
development are and what they are based on.<BR><BR>I would very much
like to know what their conclusions for land use are and what they are
based on ....<BR><BR>... and on and on and on.<BR><BR>As an example of
how the process has worked, when asked on direct questioning why they
took the particular approach they did to regulate an activity, their
response was, "Well we received a letter stating that we should do
this" They talked about it and thought it was a "good idea" and
drafted that provision of the ordinance. For example, by their
own statements, they acknowledge that the lighting ordinance was the
result of input from one citizen - Mr Stu Goldstein. If there
was an analysis of the neede for the lighting ordinance, they have not
made it available to the public.<BR><BR>During my participation at the
planning commission meetings, there have been<B><I> no
charts</I></B>,<B><I> no maps</I></B>,<B><I> no population
demographics</I></B>,<B><I> no economic demographics</I></B>,<B><I> no
studies or reports of any kind</I></B> made available to the
public.<BR><BR><B><I>Mark - Thank you for bringing the elements of the
planning process to light. This may provide a means by which
future proposals for changes to the Long-Range Comprehensive Plan are
conducted in accordance with all the applicable provisions of the
planning process. It may also help to refocus everyone on the
appropriate elements to consider as we conclude consideration of the
changes pending
now.</I></B></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net /"
eudora="autourl">http://www.fsr.net
</A><BR> <A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
eudora="autourl">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_____________________________________________________<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>